posted
As much as I am keen to know that answer as well - don't be too impatient.
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Seems we will get a good deal of stuff to talk about...
What will we do about the three unseen ships? Maybe they were really visible somewhere in the far background, and this would make them as valid as the Wolf 359 ships. What about odd names and registries? What if there is really a USS Voyager NCC-73602?
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, some people still use the 5xxxx number for the Prometheus. It could be similar to that. Voyager-74656 was lost, so they gave the name to another ship. That ship just happened to have experienced a halt in production for a while, causing it to have a rather old registry when it was finally launched and named.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Well, some people still use the 5xxxx number for the Prometheus.
Well...yeah. I can't see how anyone can claim that that's not its number. Even though the 7xxxx number was used in the dedication plaque and MSD and was probably a better number for the ship, it was barely (if at all) visible in the episode, and the other one was plastered all over the hull!
quote:I can't see how anyone can claim that that's not its number.
Because 5xxxx was an error of the CGI guys.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:What if there is really a USS Voyager NCC-73602?
You're implying that the Intrepid/Constitution kitbash is actually the Voyager study model. Until recently I would have agreed with you, but after Drexler's email, I'm not sure I feel that way any more. I guess we'll just have to wait & see.
BTW, nothing from Drexler yet. I'll give him a week or two, then I'll try to contact him again if I don't hear anything before that time.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
If the "Intrepicon" turns out to be a kitbash and not the proto-voyager then it would be an amazing coinsidence that a such a model shares so many comon features with the study model.
posted
The problem is that everyone's using different approaches. Most of the time they don't conflict, but it is the problematic areas that reveal them. Let's make up some definitions:
The Commonsense Approach:
Put an average Joe in front of a TV and ask him which number is canon. Or show him a size comparison chart and ask him to find errors. Whatever he says is gospel. Why? Because an assumption behind the medium is that you won't look too closely -- if you do you defeat its purpose (i.e. by saying that Caesar was killed by a rubber knife in "Julius Caesar" because that's what the theater prop was). The advantage of this approach is that we avoid ridiculous explanations and keep things within the intentions of the producers.
The Documentary Approach:
Treat the show as documentary footage. There are no errors whatsoever, and everything must have an explanation. Hence, the correct number is the one more likely to be correct. Which one? The MSD and plaque number, because the hull number takes longer to change and could be a previous registry that wasn't painted over. The advantage of this approach is that it introduces greater believability into the show if the explanations are sound, and that these explanations could be accepted by the producers as well and used in the show.
[ February 25, 2002, 17:54: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I just plain don't trust exterior ship shots anymore. We know the VFX guys fiddle w/ stuff to make things look better, at the cost of accuracy (why I don't trust size comparisons), and that they aren't in the best of communications w/ the rest of the staff so they make stuff up on their own (why I don't trust something like the Prommie registry).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
